Perturbation Methods for Protection of Sensitive Location Data: Smartphone Travel Survey Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smartphone based travel data collection has become an important tool for the analysis of transportation systems. Interest in sharing travel survey data has gained popularity in recent years as “open data initiatives” by governments seek to allow the public to use these data, and hopefully to contribute their findings and analysis to the public sphere. The public release of such precise information, particularly location data such as place of residence, opens the risk of privacy violation. At the same time, in order for such data to be useful, as much spatial resolution as possible is desirable for utility in transportation applications and travel demand modeling. This paper evaluates the efficacy of two geographic random perturbation methods—geo-indistinguishability and donut geomask—in protecting the privacy of respondents whose residential location may be published. The study measures the performance of location privacy methods, preservation of utility, and randomness in the distribution of perturbation distances with varying parameters. It is found that both methods produce distributions of spatial perturbations that conform closely to common probability distributions and, as a result, that the original locations can be inferred with little information and a high degree of precision. It is also found that while achieved k -estimate anonymity increases linearly with desired anonymity for the donut geomask, geo-indistinguishability is highly dependent upon its privacy budget factor and is not very effective at assuring desired achieved k -estimate anonymity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".